Catholic organizations across the country file suit against contraception mandate

Catholic organizations across the country file suit against contraception mandate

Published May 21, 2012| FoxNews.com

Some of the most influential Catholic institutions in the country filed suit against the Obama administration Monday over the so-called contraception mandate, in one of the biggest coordinated legal challenges to the rule to date.

Claiming their "fundamental rights hang in the balance," a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations filing were the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and The Catholic University of America.

The groups are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months ago softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

A statement from the University of Notre Dame said the requirement would still call on religious-affiliated groups to "facilitate" coverage "for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church."

"The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching," the statement said.

Rev. John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, said in a message to the campus that the filing "is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives."

The contraception rule does include an exemption for religious organizations -- but that exemption does not cover many religious-affiliated organizations like schools and charities. Complaints about the narrowly tailored exemption prompted a stand-off between the Obama administration and religious groups earlier this year. As a compromise, the administration said insurers -- and not the religious-affiliated organizations themselves -- could be required to offer contraceptive coverage directly.

But many organizations were not satisfied with the plan. John Garvey, president of Catholic University, said in a statement Monday that "such a revision would not solve our moral dilemma." He argued that the cost of contraceptive coverage would still be "rolled into the cost" of a university insurance policy.

"In the end the university, its employees and its students will be forced to pay for the prescriptions and services we find objectionable," he said.

University of Notre Dame Law Prof. Richard Garnett said in a statement that the mandate could affect a range of religious institutions, including "schools, health care providers and social welfare agencies."

On a separate track, officials at a Florida Catholic university decided Monday to drop student health care coverage, becoming the second school this month to make that call. The decision at Ave Maria University was based in part on objections to the contraception rule, but also on projected increased premium costs tied to new rules in the federal health care overhaul.

Fair enough, however the "Churches" actions have been often shameful for centuries~

Sure, but after 2000 years, good luck finding any organization with no stains on its record. A more fruitful and nuanced analysis is examining both the good and bad things the Catholic Church has been a part of, or has led, instead of insisting on an absolutist, idealistic crusade either for or against her.

You think that's analogous to high levels of the Catholic church sweeping child molesting priests under the rug, or transfering them so they could rape again?

You should try answering that question. Yes, they are analogous in the sense that they involving a subset of wrong actions that is part of a larger mission. One doesn't have to defend Abu Ghraib as being morally acceptable just because they support the foreign policy under the Bush Administration. One also doesn't have to defend the Church's inadequate stance with priest molesters just because they support the Church's view on, say, raising children.

Sure, but after 2000 years, good luck finding any organization with no stains on its record. A more fruitful and nuanced analysis is examining both the good and bad things the Catholic Church has been a part of, or has led, instead of insisting on an absolutist, idealistic crusade either for or against her.

Once again fair enough. That said the record of this organization is as stained as any. It is late here on the coast. I will be heading to bed shortly. I am willing to review the "actions" of this church with you if you would like, starting tomorrow~

__________________The Trump campaign and Black Lives Matter movement are perfect for each other. Both sides filled with easily led and angry nitwits convinced they are victims~

Once again fair enough. That said the record of this organization is as stained as any. It is late here on the coast. I will be heading to bed shortly. I am willing to review the "actions" of this church with you if you would like, starting tomorrow~

Okay, you could start with education when you get the time. I look forward to reading your analysis.

Unless I'm mistaken, not only were the abuses at AG an extremely rare event, the people responsible, from the grunt to the CO, were rather severely punished.

Can you say the same about the Catholic churches history of child rape?

What about that? Do you realize that it's not relevant to whether a person can defend the Church without defending their actions towards the child molestation crisis? You are engaging in a red herring. I used AG as an example to demonstrate my point about taking a nuanced view of historical events (one should be able to do this in historical study). You're using it as a distraction: to showcase what, exactly? Something other than the issue I'm talking about.